An easier way for Trump to show illegals the door

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal by a Jess Bravin reported that attorneys-general of many blue states are not going to give up quietly when Donald Trump, as President, begins to honour his election promises, such as the mass deportation of illegals. "A host of blue states are staffing up and building out legal battle plans for Trump's return trip to the White House…"

When Donald Trump will be sending Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agents to blue, sanctuary states to solicit help from local sheriffs and other police forces, the only response he may get is "civil and criminal litigation…" from entities such as Maryland's Federal Litigation Unit.

No matter who may win in the long run, if there is a mere whiff of validity in their claim, even nonpartisan judges will feel obliged to order a stay of operations for the issue to be heard in detail, and taking appeals into account, this could extend to six months if not much longer.

The problem with this, then, is not only 'justice delayed is justice denied', but more importantly, the psychological damage of slowing down the Maga momentum that has been in full speed since the election.

There is, however, quite a simple solution to this problem.

Oppositional claims that use of the state National Guard, the military or local police are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal can only be made by the attorney-general of the state where such forces have been requestioned or deployed, this being because no other state would have legal standing.

So why not begin the deportations in sympathetic red states?

And not just that, but of the 31 alleged states of that colour, the ones generally identified as more sympathetic to the cause of deporting illegals and willing to help ICE wherever possible.

Just as, for the liberals in the media or beltway, a good result would be Donald Trump hamstrung by the courts in his attempts to manifest his primary election promise, even if temporarily, a good result for the new administration would be to have even only one state, to begin with, managing a clean sweep of illegals and removing them to detention camps if not destinations beyond the border.

Then after granting police the right to detain any suspected illegal they had reason to stop, so as to maintain minimal illegal occupancy in their state, the overall benefits of the operation would become evident. Such benefits as: a decrease of the crime rate; with children following their exiting illegal parents, a decrease in the congestion of public schools; and a decrease in welfare as well as housing costs. It is true that illegals work for lower wages and if removed, the state economy would suffer, but not as much as one might think considering currently unemployed, unskilled, Americans on welfare could take up some of the slack as well as decreasing the cost of unemployment benefits. Newsweek reported in February 2024 that even though illegal immigrants annually paid an estimated $32 billion in tax contributions, they still cost Americans $151 billion in welfare, medical, education and detention costs. Last month New York Mayor Eric Adams stated he has "…spent $6.4 billion on migrants and asylum seekers, $6.4 billion I don't have now to pay for other things for struggling New Yorkers."

As the deportation operation would then be emulated in further red states, some deportation would be noticed to become voluntary, and not necessarily back to the country of origin but to 'safe' sanctuary, blue states. And when this becomes apparent what should ICE do?

Nothing, but continue the red state apprehensions and deportations. In time, when most of the red states have been cleared of illegals, some of which adding to the already high numbers in the sanctuary states, the difference between the lifestyles and standards of living of the red and blue states should become visible, even to the colourblind.

Differences, amongst others, would be housing, education and welfare costs; the need for translators in schools, hospitals, courts and police precincts; and crime rates, including fentanyl and other drug use.

By this stage it might be reasonable to believe that blue state governors, perhaps motivated by the ongoing California to Texas and New York to Florida diasporas being emulated with other blue states, would drop any resistance to ICE operating in their state.

Liberals of blue states so ideologically driven that they advocate open borders no matter what, will tolerate the tribulations of unskilled, third world peoples of a different language living amongst them and on their tax dollar. This is in the belief that not only were they importing future Democratic voters for the majority of states, but that their fellow Americans of the conservative, political persuasion will allegedly suffer more so from the proximity because of their 'racist' and 'nativists' attitudes.

However, when they discover that it will be all for naught, as it will be only they in their own states who will have to bear the burden, it will be interesting to see how long they are willing to continue their "humanitarian" virtue signalling.